Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “publications”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,099 records · Page 61
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Potential Dose and Environmental Impacts from Proposed Testing at the INL Radiological Response Training Range

This assessment uses screening-level models to calculate potential environmental impacts from proposed tests at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Radiological Response Training Range (RRTR) site. Proposed tests could be conducted using 11 different radioactive material types that include K2O, LaBr3, KBr, Cu, Zr, F, Ga, Ga2O3, NaNO2, Ga-68, and Tc-99m. The tests could potentially release radioactive material to the atmosphere and radionuclides and other contaminants to the soil, which could leach into the unsaturated zone and migrate to the aquifer. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides to potential human receptors and time-integrated air concentrations were calculated with a Gaussian plume model and three years of hourly meteorological data. Potential surface-soil impacts were calculated with the computer program mixing-cell model (MCM). Groundwater impacts were calculated with the computer programs MCM and GWSCREEN. Radiological doses from potential atmospheric releases were calculated for public receptors off the INL Site and for workers at nearby INL facilities. Results were compared to regulatory dose limits. Maximum potential groundwater concentrations were estimated in the aquifer below the NSTR site and compared to drinking water standards or risk-based screening levels for resident tap water. Soil concentrations were calculated and compared to risk-based screening levels for workers and potential future residents. All impacts were estimated assuming 12 tests are conducted annually using all 11 material types for a period of 15 years. This document provides the resources to enable a subject matter expert in the field of environmental assessments to replicate the modeling and calculations. The methodology and parameters are presented in the text. All electronic files, including computer-code input, output, executable files, batch files, scripts, and spreadsheet files are contained in a zip file that can be accessed by selecting “Additional Information” (select Native File) in the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). It is highly unlikely the test scenarios evaluated in this ECAR will adversely impact human health based on comparisons of calculated dose and concentration against regulatory standards and risk-based screening levels. Conservative estimates of dose to workers and the public from atmospheric transport of possible radionuclide releases are far below federal radiation protection standards. Conservative estimates of potential contaminant concentrations in groundwater are less than federal drinking water standards or screening levels. Predicted radionuclide concentrations in surface soils are below risk-based screening levels, except for Ge-68 (material Ga-68) for the worker. The Ge-68 soil concentration can be made less than the worker PRG, if the number of annual tests using Ga-68 is reduced from 12 to 6. However, the sum of ratios still exceeds one because of the high K-40 ratio. If the EF of the worker (number of days the worker is in the contaminated testing area) is reduced from 225 days/yr (default value for full time worker) to 112 days/yr, the Ge-68 ratio is less than one and the sum of ratios is less than one. Actual radiation doses and groundwater and surface-soil concentrations are likely to be much less than those calculated because of the conservative assumptions and parameters employed in the modeling. For example, atmospheric-transport calculations assume the entire inventory of each material type is readily released to the atmosphere and no plume deposition, depletion, or radioactive decay occurs during transport. The calculations also assume the same meteorological conditions (e.g., wind velocity, wind direction, stability class) that produce the maximum 95th percentile concentration (i.e., concentration representing the 95th percentile of a distribution of concentrations derived from 3 years of hourly meteorological data) at each receptor location are the same for all 12 tests during the year, and each receptor is assumed to be present during all 12 tests. The surface-soil assessment assumes the entire inventory of each test is deposited in the top 5 cm of soil. No atmospheric dispersal is assumed, and the radionuclides are subject only to leaching and radioactive decay. The groundwater-pathway modeling is conservative in that it is one-dimensional in the unsaturated zone (no lateral spreading/dilution) and assumes the entire inventory of contaminants infiltrates into the ground at the same location for every test. This is especially conservative for particulate radionuclides because they would have to dissolve or corrode first and some would be dispersed into the atmosphere. The groundwater receptor is also assumed to consume water directly from a hypothetical well positioned in the location of maximum concentration. In addition, conservative degradation rates were used, and volatilization was not considered for the nonradioactive chemical

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Potential Dose and Environmental Impacts from Proposed Testing at the INL National Security Test Range

This assessment uses screening-level models to calculate potential environmental impacts from proposed tests at two locations at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) National Security Test Range (NSTR) site. Proposed tests could be conducted using 11 different radioactive material types that include K 2 O, LaBr 3 , KBr, Cu, Zr, F, Ga, Ga 2 O 3 , NaNO 2 , Ga-68, and Tc-99m. The tests could potentially release radioactive material to the atmosphere and radionuclides and other contaminants to the soil, which could leach into the unsaturated zone and migrate to the aquifer. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides to potential human receptors and time-integrated air concentrations were calculated with a Gaussian plume model and three years of hourly meteorological data. Potential surface-soil impacts were calculated with the computer program mixing-cell model (MCM). Groundwater impacts were calculated with the computer programs MCM and GWSCREEN. Radiological doses from potential atmospheric releases were calculated for public receptors off the INL Site and for workers at nearby INL facilities. Results were compared to regulatory dose limits. Maximum potential groundwater concentrations were estimated in the aquifer below the NSTR site and compared to drinking water standards or risk-based screening levels for resident tap water. Soil concentrations were calculated and compared to risk-based screening levels for workers and potential future residents. All impacts were estimated based on the assumption that 12 tests are conducted annually using all 11 material types for 15 years. This document provides the resources to enable a subject matter expert in the field of environmental assessments to replicate the modeling and calculations. The methodology and parameters are presented in the text. All electronic files, including computer-code input, output, executable files, batch files, scripts, and spreadsheet files, are contained in a zip file that can be accessed by selecting “Additional Information” (select Native File) in the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). It is highly unlikely the test scenarios evaluated in this ECAR will adversely impact human health based on comparisons of calculated dose and concentration against regulatory standards and risk-based screening levels. Conservative estimates of dose to workers and the public from atmospheric transport of possible radionuclide releases are far below federal radiation protection standards. Conservative estimates of potential contaminant concentrations in groundwater are less than federal drinking water standards or screening levels. Predicted radionuclide concentrations in surface soils are below risk-based screening levels, except for Ge-68 (material Ga-68) for the worker. The Ge-68 soil concentration can be made less than the worker PRG, if the number of annual tests using Ga-68 is reduced from 12 to 6. However, the sum of ratios still exceeds one because of the high K-40 ratio. If the EF of the worker (number of days the worker is in the contaminated testing area) is reduced from 225 days/yr (default value for full time worker) to 112 days/yr, the Ge-68 ratio is less than one and the sum of ratios is less than one. Actual radiation doses and groundwater and surface-soil concentrations are likely to be much less than those calculated because of the conservative assumptions and parameters employed in the modeling. For example, atmospheric-transport calculations assume the entire inventory of each material type is readily released to the atmosphere and no plume deposition, depletion, or radioactive decay occurs during transport. The calculations also assume the same meteorological conditions (e.g., wind velocity, wind direction, stability class) that produce the maximum 95th percentile concentration (i.e., concentration representing the 95th percentile of a distribution of concentrations derived from 3 years of hourly meteorological data) at each receptor location are the same for all 12 tests during the year, and each receptor is assumed to be present during all 12 tests. The surface-soil assessment assumes the entire inventory of each test is deposited in the top 5 cm of soil. No atmospheric dispersal is assumed, and the radionuclides are subject only to leaching and radioactive decay. The groundwater-pathway modeling is conservative in that it is one-dimensional in the unsaturated zone (no lateral spreading/dilution) and assumes the entire inventory of contaminants infiltrates into the ground at the same location for every test. This is especially conservative for particulate radionuclides because they would have to dissolve or corrode first and some would be dispersed into the atmosphere. The groundwater receptor is also assumed to consume water directly from a hypothetical well positioned in the location of maximum concentration. In addition, conservative degradation rates were used, and volatilization was not considered for the nonradradioactive chemicals modeled. And finally, the calculations assume all 12 tests will be performed at the same place at both locations, and all 11 radioactive material types will be used for each test. This is conservative because it is anticipated that no more than two material types will be used per test.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Packaged Combined Heat and Power Technology Overview and Market Profile

Combined heat and power (CHP), sometimes referred to as cogeneration, is an efficient and clean approach to generating electric power and useful thermal energy onsite from a single fuel source, offering reliable and affordable energy services to businesses and institutions. Furthermore, CHP provides a cost effective opportunity to improve the environmental footprint and resilience of industrial and commercial facilities across the United States. CHP equipment can be custom-engineered or installed as a predesigned and assembled package. A packaged CHP system is a standardized, pre-engineered system that includes all equipment, piping, wiring, and ancillary components to deliver electricity and thermal energy to a host facility with minimal onsite engineering and design time. Packaged CHP systems can be shipped as single or multiple modules with standard interconnections (e.g., fuel; electrical; thermal—hot water, steam, and/or chilled water), which simplifies installation and reduces the costs associated with the project. Most containerized or single packaged CHP system offerings range from 10 kW to 3 MW in capacity. Packaged CHP systems are extending the operating, efficiency, and emissions benefits of CHP to nontraditional markets in commercial, institutional, multifamily, light manufacturing, government, and military applications. These markets tend to be served by smaller systems (less than 5 MW) that are conducive to pre-engineered packaging and/or modularization. Many of these sectors have limited CHP experience and technical resources to adequately evaluate, install, and maintain onsite CHP systems. The introduction of packaged CHP offerings from experienced CHP Packagers and Solution Providers has accelerated CHP adoption, lowered energy costs, reduced emissions, and strengthened energy resilience in these sectors. In 2019, the US Department of Energy (DOE) launched the Packaged CHP eCatalog to promote increased acceptance of efficient, cost-effective CHP in these applications. The Packaged CHP eCatalog is a web-based, searchable platform that hosts DOE-recognized packaged CHP systems with features designed to reduce economic and performance risks for designers, developers, owners, and facility operators interested in installing CHP. DOE established the Packaged CHP Accelerator at the same time to help launch and publicize the eCatalog, and to validate project performance, cost, and installation time of CHP packages across a variety of applications. Accelerator efforts documented installed cost reductions and installation time reductions of more than 20% for packaged CHP systems over 100 kW compared with custom-engineered systems. The Packaged CHP Accelerator and eCatalog established a peer-to-peer network connecting public and private sector partners including utilities, state energy offices, and energy efficiency program administrators interested in promoting cost-effective, efficient CHP systems, Packagers, and Solution Providers. Feedback from these partners, along with input from DOE’s CHP Technical Assistance Partnerships (CHP TAPs), was critical in understanding the current market for packaged CHP technologies, stimulating investment in these technologies, and guiding future directions for packaged CHP systems and their applications. This report provides background on packaged CHP systems, an overview of their benefits, a profile of current packaged CHP installations, and a summary of future market trends; this report is intended for facility owners, project developers, engineers, policymakers, and other stakeholders looking to increase the adoption of efficient, flexible, and resilient packaged CHP systems.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Generating MCNP Input Files for Unstructured Mesh Geometries

The Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (LANL) Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP)1 transport code version 6.3 (also known as MCNP6.3) has the capability for tracking particles on unstructured mesh (UM) geometry models embedded into constructive solid geometry (CSG) cells. This feature has been developed for performing calculations of complex geometry models because manually creating CSG models is time-consuming and error-prone as the complexities of geometries increase. A UM geometry model is a collection of finite elements representing a solid geometry. The first step of the MCNP UM calculation is using other software packages to create a finite element mesh representation of a solid 3D geometry because the MCNP code cannot be used to generate a UM model. Computer-aided design (CAD) software is typically used to create a solid geometry model, which is later imported into mesh generation software to create a UM model. Some mesh generation software packages may also be used to create solid geometries and thus CAD files are not needed. The MCNP UM feature was originally designed for models generated by the Abaqus/CAE software suite. The MCNP code version 6.0 and later can process UM models formatted as Abaqus input files. Starting with a 6.3 version, the MCNP code can process HDF5 mesh input files. We only focus on the UM models formatted as Abaqus input files in this report since currently no external software can be used to generate HDF5 mesh input files for MCNP UM calculations. The MCNP code version 6.3 can be used to convert the Abaqus mesh input files into the HDF5 mesh input files, but this option is typically used by the MCNP code development team to test the HDF5 mesh input file feature. Several software packages (such as Abaqus, Attila4MC, or Cubit) can be used to create the Abaqus input files for MCNP UM calculations. An MCNP UM calculation using an Abaqus model requires two input file types: MCNP and Abaqus input files. The Abaqus input files needed for MCNP UM calcu lations must have the correct Abaqus syntax and meet the additional requirements by the MCNP code. The MCNP code can process only Abaqus input files that make use of part and assembly definitions, where elements in each part must be grouped into one or more element sets (i.e., elset) using *Elset keyword lines with specified naming formats. The MCNP and Abaqus input files required for MCNP UM simulations must be related; pseudo-cells in an MCNP input file must be constructed from mesh model data from an Abaqus input file. For large complex UM models, it is tedious to manually create MCNP UM input files. The um pre op (unstructured mesh pre operations) program with the -m option can be used to create a skeleton MCNP input file from an Abaqus input file [6]. Since the um pre op program was written in Fortran and was not written for optimized performance, this program is a deprecated feature in the MCNP code version 6.3 and may be removed in the next release of the code. To improve calculation flow of multiphysics calculations, a Python3 code called write mcnp um input has been developed to generate an MCNP input file instead of using the um_pre_op -m option. This Python code was initially released to the public in 2020. We have updated this Python code for MCNP6.3 and it was used to generate the MCNP input files used to verify the MCNP6.3 code. The write_mcnp_um_input code is included with the MCNP6.3 code package which will be released to the public through the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This report is a revision of LA-UR-20-27139 report.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Applying 3D Geologic Modeling Workflows to the Argillite Reference Case (Rev. 1)

The objective of this short report is to document the application of our 3D geologic modeling workflow to an argillite (shale) host rock. Over the past four years, our team at Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a geologic modeling workflow that can be applied to generic alluvial basins such as those found in the western United States. In “frontier” or “exploratory” basins where data are sparse, the first steps are to collect, evaluate and integrate available subsurface data into conceptual geologic models. Those models form the basis for constructing the geologic framework model, a 3D geocellular model ideally constrained by seismic and borehole data. To date we have constructed our models using “synthetic” well data derived from conceptual models, without the prospect of validating our workflow using “real” subsurface data. We were tasked to investigate whether our workflow designed for alluvial basin sediments could be applied to other potential repository host rocks. This task also provided the opportunity to work with high-quality subsurface data collected specifically for siting and evaluating a nuclear waste repository. Nagra, the Swiss governmental agency responsible for the disposal of the nation’s radioactive waste, generously provided us with data from two deep boreholes drilled through their argillaceous target formation. The aim of our proof-of-concept demonstration is to evaluate whether geostatistical methods offer a viable approach to property modeling in argillaceous rocks. Nagra provided us with the well data on the condition that we maintain confidentiality with all transferred information and results. Fortunately, Nagra posts numerous technical reports on its public website that describe the subsurface geology in great detail. All of the information and illustrations in this report related to the Swiss repository enterprise are taken from the Nagra public website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Moving Beyond 4-Hour Li-Ion Batteries: Challenges and Opportunities for Long(er)-Duration Energy Storage

This report is a continuation of the Storage Futures Study and explores the factors driving the transition from recent storage deployments with four or fewer hours to deployments of storage with greater than four hours. The report specifically builds on the first publication in the Storage Futures Study series, The Four Phases of Storage Deployment: A Framework for the Expanding Role of Storage in the U.S. Power System, that established a conceptual framework of roles and opportunities for new, cost-competitive stationary energy storage over the course of four phases of current and potential future storage deployment. This latest publication delves into Phases 2 and 3 when solar photovoltaics and storage increase the value of each other, and lower costs and technology improvements enable storage to be cost-competitive while serving longer-duration applications.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Component-Level Bottom-Up Cost Model for Pumped Storage Hydropower

Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) is currently the largest source of utility-scale electricity storage in the U.S. and worldwide. As the accelerating deployment of variable renewable technologies creates opportunity and value for energy storage, it has become increasingly important to characterize PSH costs to understand how it competes. Site-specific considerations and limited cost data in the public domain make it difficult to estimate capital costs for potential new PSH sites. This report documents a spreadsheet-based tool that addresses this challenge and creates a component-level bottom-up cost model for PSH that can be made publicly available for widespread use. It uses detailed site-level physical characteristics and design specifications to calculate key performance and cost parameters for individual components and the project as a whole. The model was developed in consultation with HDR, Inc. and Small Hydro Consulting to ensure it aligns with industry expectations. It enables PSH cost exploration across a wide range of system assumptions and could be customized or extended for the needs of a variety of users.

cost model↗
DOE OSTI2023

2022 Annual Site Environment Report, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

This report provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2022 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2022. PPPL’s on-site operations started to be restored in 2022, following curtailments in 2020 and 2021 for the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. PPPL has engaged in fusion energy research since 1951 and at its current locations since 1958. The Laboratory’s mission is to develop the scientific knowledge and advanced engineering to enable fusion to power the U.S. and the world, and to develop the understanding of plasmas from the nano- to the astrophysical scale. PPPL’s primary experiment, the National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade (NSTX-U) is a collaboration among national laboratories, universities, and national and international research institutions and is a major element in the US Fusion Energy Sciences Program. Its design tests the physics principles of spherical torus (ST) plasmas, playing an important role in the development of smaller, more economical fusion reactors. Due to previous operational issues, NSTX-U did not operate in 2022. PPPL is engaged in a project to replace key NSTX-U components and systems to enable the operation of this international magnetic fusion user facility. In 2022, PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program measured tritium in the air at onsite sampling stations. Using highly sensitive air monitors, PPPL is capable of detecting small changes in the ambient levels of tritium. The operation of monitors located on D-site is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. Also included in PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program, are water monitoring – ground, surface, and waste waters. PPPL’s radiological monitoring program characterized the background levels of tritium in the environment and those data are presented in this report. Ground water monitoring continued under New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program regulations. PPPL monitored for non-radiological contaminants, mainly volatile organic compounds (components of common degreasing solvents). In 2022, PPPL complied with permit limits for surface water and sanitary wastewater discharges. PPPL was honored with an award for EPEAT-certified electronics purchasing from the Global Electronics Council.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

U.S. Hydropower Market Report 2023

This is the fourth complete edition of the U.S. Hydropower Market Report (the previous editions, published in 2015, 2018, and 2021, are available here). In intervening years between publishing the full report, updated data are also summarized and released and can be found at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory HydroSource website. This report combines data from public and commercial sources and research findings from other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) R&D projects to provide a comprehensive picture of developments in the U.S. hydropower and pumped storage hydropower (PSH) fleet and industry trends. Prior to the first Hydropower Market Report being published, there was a noted lack of publicly available and easily accessible information about hydropower in the United States and other important trends affecting this important sector of the energy industry. New and valuable types of information are constantly being developed as part of DOE research activities and, in a rapidly evolving energy industry, it is important that these data be made available in a predictable and consistent manner for use by all different types of stakeholders and decision-makers.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Workflows Community Summit 2022: A Roadmap Revolution

Scientific workflows have become integral tools in broad scientific computing use cases. Science discovery is increasingly dependent on workflows to orchestrate large and complex scientific experiments that range from the execution of a cloud-based data preprocessing pipeline to multi-facility instrument-to-edge-to-HPC computational workflows. Given the changing landscape of scientific computing (often referred to as a computing continuum) and the evolving needs of emerging scientific applications, it is paramount that the development of novel scientific workflows and system functionalities seek to increase the efficiency, resilience, and pervasiveness of existing systems and applications. Specifically, the proliferation of machine learning/artificial intelligence (ML/AI) workflows, need for processing large-scale datasets produced by instruments at the edge, intensification of near real-time data processing, support for long-term experiment campaigns, and emergence of quantum computing as an adjunct to HPC, have significantly changed the functional and operational requirements of workflow systems. Workflow systems now need to, for example, support data streams from the edge-to-cloud-to-HPC, enable the management of many small-sized files, allow data reduction while ensuring high accuracy, orchestrate distributed services (workflows, instruments, data movement, provenance, publication, etc.) across computing and user facilities, among others. Further, to accelerate science, it is also necessary that these systems implement specifications/standards and APIs for seamless (horizontal and vertical) integration between systems and applications, as well as enable the publication of workflows and their associated products according to the FAIR principles.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

GeoThermalCloud: A Machine Learning Tool for Discovery, Exploration, and Development of Hidden Geothermal Resources

In this 25 minute presentation, we showcase our open source “GeoThermalCloud” tool for identifying hidden geothermal resources using a publicly available dataset for southwestern New Mexico. The presenters include Bulbul Ahmmed and Luke Frash. All of the visuals use source material from LA-UR approved publications and this work falls under the Earth Sciences DUSA. The code shown in this video is already released with LANL approval in open source format on GitHub and DockerHub. The audio in this video includes only material on the topics of geothermal energy and machine learning applied to geothermal energy. The primary machine learning method used is LANL’s Non-negative Matrix Factorization “NMFk” method. Modeling work also mentions LANL’s Geothermal Design Tool “GeoDT” which is another approved open source code that has been released by LANL. This work was performed for DOE Geothermal Technologies Office (DE-EE-3.1.8.1). The host for the released video is intended to be YouTube or a suitable perpetual data repository such as GDR.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Bioenergy Feedstock Library 2023 Annual Summary Report

The Bioenergy Feedstock Library (BFL), part of the Biomass Feedstock National User Facility (BFNUF) located at INL, is a physical sample repository and a web-accessible electronic database. The BFL stores physical and chemical characteristics of biomass and waste carbon sources for energy use as well as samples generated from across U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) and U.S. Department of Agriculture funded projects. The objective of this Bioenergy Feedstock Library Annual Summary Report for 2023 is to focus on the updates to (1) publicly available analytical data and equipment tracked through the BFNUF, (2) physical samples available for request, (3) sample and data archival progress from recent BETO-funded projects, and (4) publicly available datasets created upon request from BETO, INL projects, or outside entities compared to the 2022 Bioenergy Feedstock Library Annual Summary Report. This report highlights key statistics and available data and information important for INL, BFL users, academics, and industry.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Experiences of Member States in Building a Nuclear Security Infrastructure for New Nuclear Power Programmes

A nuclear power programme has many benefits, but it is a major undertaking that requires careful planning and preparation as well as a substantial investment in time. It also necessitates the establishment of a sustainable national infrastructure with committed and sustained financial and human resources. While nuclear power is not unique in this respect, it is different from other sources of energy because of the risks associated with the use of nuclear material, as well as the need for compliance with international legal instruments, internationally accepted nuclear safety standards, nuclear security guidance, and safeguards requirements. The IAEA’s Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1 (Rev. 1), defines a phased approach that identifies 19 infrastructure issues that should be addressed in each of the three phases of the development of a nuclear infrastructure for a nuclear power programme. The publication Evaluation of the Status of National Nuclear Infrastructure Development IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NG-T-3.2 (Rev. 2) provides a methodology to determine the status of the infrastructure conditions covering all 19 issues identified in the Milestones Approach. A companion IAEA Implementing Guide, Establishing the Nuclear Security Infrastructure for a Nuclear Power Programme, IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 19, provides guidance on the recommended actions to be taken by a State to establish an effective national nuclear security infrastructure for a nuclear power programme using the Milestones Approach. This publication is intended to provide guidance based on the experiences and good practices of Member States with embarking nuclear power programmes as well as Member States that are expanding their nuclear power programmes. The guidance is in the form of case studies, which highlight challenges, issues, and solutions identified by Member States as lessons learned for new nuclear power programmes. This TECDOC is designed to present the experiences of Member States to assist other Member States in developing a nuclear security programme. It addresses the key actions necessary to establish an effective national nuclear security infrastructure for a nuclear power programme consistent with the three phases of the IAEA Milestones Approach. The Member States that provided case studies in this document are at different stages in the development of a nuclear power programme.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Confirmation of Radiological Non-Impact Status for TA-08-0032, TA-11-0024 and -0036

Environmental Protection and Compliance, Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) has evaluated radiological process knowledge and surveys and found that the structures and associated building materials in Technical Area 8 Building 32 and Technical Area 11 Buildings 24 and 36 (TA-08-0032, TA-11-00024, and TA-11-0036, respectively) are candidates for unrestricted use and public release. This finding is consistent with the requirements of DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment and LANL Procedure FSD-004, Environmental Radiation Protection.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Confirmation of Radiological Non-Impact Status for TA-16-380

Environmental Protection and Compliance, Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) has evaluated radiological process knowledge and surveys and found that the structure and associated building materials in Technical Area 16 Building 380 (TA-16-380) are candidates for unrestricted use and public release. This finding is consistent with the requirements of DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment and LANL Procedure FSD-004, Environmental Radiation Protection.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Replacement Water Lines from TA-48 to TA-55

Environmental Protection and Compliance, Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) has determined that only a portion of the soil associated with Replacement Water Lines from Technical Area (TA)-48 to TA55 (Figure 1) meets the criteria for unrestricted release to the public under Department of Energy (DOE) Order 458.1, Radiation Protection for the Public and the Environment (DOE, 2020). The remaining soil did not meet the criteria for unrestricted release and must be managed appropriately. These conclusions are based on the known history of the area combined with soil sample data collected in 2022; the findings are consistent with DOE Order 458.1 and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Functional Series Document EPC-ES-FSD-004, Environmental Radiation Protection (LANL, 2021). Sampling and data analysis, as described in this report, were sufficient to meet measurement quality objectives (MQOs) under the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment (MARSAME) manual (NUREG, 2009) and LANL procedures (LANL, 2020). Final approvals for waste disposition will come from LANL’s Waste Management Program.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Confirmation of Radiological Non-Impact Status for TA-22 Magazines

Environmental Protection and Compliance, Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) has evaluated radiological process knowledge and surveys and found that the structures and associated building materials in magazines and process building at Technical Area 22 (TA-22) are candidates for unrestricted use and public release. TA-22 magazines included in this analysis are: buildings TA-0011, -0012, -0014, -0015, -0016, -0017, -0019, -0021, -0022, -0023, -0024, -0035, and -0069 and building TA-22-0025, which is an a process building. This finding is consistent with the requirements of DOE Order 458.1 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment and LANL Procedure FSD-004 Environmental Radiation Protection.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗